nansen: nansen_defi_portfolio

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the types of DeFi positions included (LP, lending, staking, farming), which informs the agent about the data scope beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, compact sentence that quickly conveys the tool's purpose. No filler words, and the key details are front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but sparse. It does not mention return format or pagination behavior, though the 'per_page' parameter hints at pagination. More detail on expected output could improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add significant meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides; it only hints at output contents. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a wallet's DeFi portfolio, specifying LP positions, lending, staking, and farming across protocols. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'nansen_wallet_profiler' or 'getBalances' by focusing specifically on DeFi positions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for DeFi portfolio queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.